Orrin Hatch

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, how much time remains on this side?

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, today the Senate will immediately resume consideration of the bankruptcy bill under the previous order. Senator Wellstone will be in control of the first hour to debate his amendments regarding lifeline accounts and debt collection. There are other remaining amendments that will be debated and voted on throughout today's session with a vote on final passage expected to occur no later than tomorrow. As a reminder, a cloture motion was filed on the motion to proceed to the nuclear waste disposal legislation during Monday's session, and by previous consent that vote will occur following completion of the bankruptcy bill during Wednesday's session of the Senate. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Will the Senator yield?

Mr. HATCH. I am happy to yield time to the distinguished Senator.

Mr. HATCH. I ask the Senator, since he is just starting his remarks, if he will yield to the distinguished Senator from Alaska who has a very short statement.

Mr. HATCH. If I may infringe on my colleague's time just for a minute----

Mr. HATCH. As I understand it, the unanimous consent request is that there will be no votes until 2:15, Senator Wellstone having the first hour.

Mr. HATCH. Yes. I have no objection.

Mr. HATCH. The two Wellstone amendments, they have been filed, haven't they?

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendment offered by the Senator from Michigan. This amendment makes debts owed by a corporation on account of firearms non-dischargeable in a chapter 11 reorganization bankruptcy proceeding if the debt arose out of an action for fraud, misrepresentation, negligence, nuisance, or product liability. In addition, this amendment excepts such debts from the automatic stay protection provided in a bankruptcy proceeding. This amendment effectively singles out both gun manufacturers and those who legally transfer guns, including major retailers who sells guns in compliance with all laws, and prevents them from successfully reorganizing under the bankruptcy laws, if they should need such reorganization. If a large product liability suit succeeds against a gun manufacturer, this amendment virtually ensures that the companies affected will be driven out of business and its workers will lose their jobs. In addition to being just bad policy, the amendment is also self- defeating. Here is why: it effectively assures that only a fraction of the judgment against the affected company will be paid, if at all. That is because those manufacturers that could pay off the judgment over time will not be able to do so, and will be forced into liquidation. This is neither good for the lawful business, nor for those other investors or creditors with legitimate claims against the company. I also want to point out to my colleagues that as a matter of longstanding bankruptcy policy in the United States, it has been universally recognized that if a company with manufacturing expertise suffers an unexpected financial setback--whether from a huge products liability judgment or business reverses--everyone is better off if it can at least try and restructure the business to preserve its legitimate business lines. Workers can save their jobs and creditors can be paid off over time from the operating revenues of the restructured company, receiving much more than they would from liquidation. It is not as if this amendment, much to the dismay of its supporters, will wipe out the second amendment's protection to bear arms. What this amendment will do is ensure that the manufacture of legal arms, and the corresponding jobs it creates, will move overseas. Longstanding bankruptcy policy in this country has been that bankruptcy laws should apply to all lawful products and industries in a similar fashion; not pick and choose between unpopular, but legal, industries. This amendment unfairly singles out one industry for unfavorable treatment, and does so in an unprecedented fashion. In my view, Congress should be loathe to single out companies that legally manufacture or sell lawful products for unfavorable treatment, simply because they are unpopular. Which industry will be targeted next? We should not be setting the precedent that lines of business that are unpopular with some in the Congress, but legal, will be denied the ability to reorganize in bankruptcy. If we do this to firearms manufacturers, what about companies involved in other industries, such as medical devices, drug manufacturing, or automobile makers? The basic social policy that it is better to keep the company operating and paying off the judgment than liquidating it should not be narrowed company by company, industry by industry. Plain and simple, this amendment is designed to encourage lawsuits by trial lawyers against gun manufacturers and retailers who sell guns. And I think this amendment is part of an effort to put the firearms industry out of business. Let me emphasize that I am very concerned about the gun violence our country has experienced in recent years. However, I am a firm believer in second amendment rights. The amendment encourages the new wave of lawsuits we have all been hearing about, in which gun manufacturers are being sued for the conduct of third-party criminals. Liberals have been unable to eliminate the second amendment or the gun industry through direct legislation, so they are attempting to eliminate it through this kind of backdoor ``policy through litigation'' approach. This amendment promotes an issue that has nothing to do with real bankruptcy reform and sets an undesirable precedent. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to vote against this amendment. It is time for us in the Congress to grow up with regard to firearms matters in our country. There is no use kidding ourselves. We have passed some 20,000 rules, regulations, and laws in this country against the use of firearms that have limited our second amendment rights and privileges. There are some legitimate arguments against this type of legislation. I believe it is far preferable for us to uphold second amendment rights and privileges and get tougher on criminals. Our problem in this country, and especially over the last 7 years, is that this administration has not been serious about getting tough on criminals. Under Project Triggerlock, the number of gun prosecutions under that approach, which was working very well under President Bush, has now dropped by 50 percent. No wonder the President in his State of the Union Address said: We are going to start doing something about gun crimes. They caught 12,000 people illegally taking guns to school in the last few years, and there have been only 13 prosecutions. Last year, up to January 1, they caught 100,000 people under the instant check system. They call that Brady, as if that were a victory by the administration. Brady was first a 7-day waiting period which devolved into 5 days. In order to not prevent decent, law-abiding citizens from purchasing their guns, we instituted the instant check system, and it has worked magnificently. Of the 100,000 people they caught last year trying to illegally purchase weapons, I do not recall one single prosecution. I understand that 200 have been recommended for prosecution, one-fifth of 1 percent. I could go on and on. This administration has not been serious about gun crimes, and we have not had a lot of help from people who are opposed to the second amendment in helping to resolve these problems. The juvenile justice bill is caught up in a conference that is impossible to resolve unless we get rid of this issue and do what has to be done in the interest of juvenile justice. The fact of the matter is, there is always going to be somebody trying to--and sincerely so--make political points on the issue of guns and weapons. This is not the bill on which they should be making those political points. This would be a very disastrous approach towards bankruptcy law. It means that anytime you find enough popular business a majority of Members of Congress can stick it to, they are going to be able to do it under the bankruptcy laws. That is ridiculous. When we start showing preferences for certain political points of view in bankruptcies to the exclusion of common sense, then it seems to me we are all going to suffer. Sooner or later, it is going to affect something that each one of us treasures or thinks is particularly important. I speak in opposition to this amendment. This amendment would do an injustice to the bankruptcy laws. In the process, I think we will not accomplish what my friends on the other side, who are sincere about it--at least I believe most of them are sincere about it--really want to do. It is better for us to battle out these issues in Congress. I, for one, will be opposed to any diminution in our second amendment rights and privileges. If you want to diminish the second amendment, then you ought to do it by constitutional amendment. You shouldn't be doing it by bits and tatters. It ought to be done straight up, and it ought to be done in a way that is constitutionally justifiable, and not in these bits and pieces that literally make political points but do not belong in something as important as this bankruptcy bill. I yield the floor.

Mr. HATCH. Then I ask unanimous consent that the votes occur with respect to the pending amendments in stacked sequence beginning at 2:15 p.m. today and that there be 5 minutes for debate to be equally divided for closing remarks prior to the votes.

Mr. HATCH. I move to table both amendments. I ask unanimous consent that it be in order for me to move to table each amendment.

Mr. HATCH. No. When they occur, they will be tabled.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise to speak in opposition to the amendments offered by the distinguished Senator from Minnesota. His amendment is, in fact, two amendments--one to the bankruptcy laws and one to the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act. The debt collection amendment would prohibit anyone, such as a grocery store or a hotel, who cashes checks for a fee and defers depositing the check from notifying the writer of a check which is later bounced that they will seek civil or criminal penalties for that bounced check. It is important to keep in mind that under most State laws writing bad checks is a crime and many States allow for civil and/or criminal penalties against those who write fraudulent checks. The other part of this amendment would disallow in bankruptcy claims arising from a deferred deposit loan--a so-called payday loan--if the annual percentage rate of the loan exceeds 100 percent. Although well intentioned, this amendment is misplaced. So-called payday loans are made when a borrower writes a check for the loan amount plus a fee. The lender typically gives the borrower the loan amount and holds the check until a future date. In making payday loans, these lenders provide a vital service to the poorest borrowers. Because sometimes it is more convenient to go to a hotel, grocery store, gas station, or other similar businesses that may keep longer hours than banks, many consumers choose to cash a check at these types of places when they need small amounts of money to overcome an emergency. With this check cashing service, borrowers can get the emergency cash they need without telling the boss they need a cash advance or giving up their televisions and furniture. This is a legitimate service that many honest consumers use and in which established businesses engage. If adopted, this amendment may operate to the detriment of the very people it is intended to help. So I urge colleagues to vote against that amendment. The lifeline account amendment would disallow the bankruptcy claims of certain banks and credit unions. In particular, it would disallow claims by larger institutions, such as banks with more than $200 million in aggregate assets that offer retail depository services to the public, unless they offer the specific services required by this amendment. First, these institutions would be required to offer both checking and savings accounts with ``low fees'' or no fees at all. Second, they would have to offer ``low'' or no minimum balance requirements for checking and savings accounts--and to any consumer, regardless of income level. Further, the ``penalty'' for not providing these particular services is the disallowance of the bank's claim in bankruptcy. That is a harsh penalty, indeed, and a windfall for bankrupts. Let me explain what this means. It means someone with the resources of, let's say, Steve Forbes can walk into one of these banks, and if he is denied a ``low fee'' or no fee account, then any claim that bank has in any bankruptcy proceeding--not just Steve's bankruptcy--then the bank's claims are disallowed. I emphasize that any claim in any bankruptcy will be disallowed because the bank did not offer Steve Forbes a ``low'' or no fee checking account. Let me substitute Bill Gates' name for Steve Forbes here. I should also note that this amendment does not describe what a ``low fee'' account is. Whose standard of low are we to base this dictated fee on? This is bad policy that would effectively dictate to banks the specific services they must offer, whether or not consumers need or want them. This is Government interference with free markets at its worse. Whenever such rules are forced on businesses, the offsetting costs inevitably occur. In other words, consumers will end up paying for mandated low fee or free checking in the form of higher prices for other services. Alternatively, other services by banks may be discontinued to offset the costs of these new requirements, not to mention the costs of the penalties. I don't believe this kind of regulatory interference with the markets is either warranted or wise. I urge colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Mr. HATCH. We will go right back to the Senator from New York. I thank my colleague for his courtesy.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I yield time to the distinguished Senator from Missouri.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Madam President, as we come to the end of the first month of the new millennium, I want to make a few remarks about the great promise of biotechnology in benefitting the American public. In fact, January 2000 has been very appropriately designated as Biotechnology Month. In my view, this first century of the new millennium will be remembered by historians for revolutionary advances in biomedical research. It is fitting that in the next few months scientists will complete the mapping of the human genome--the basic blueprint of the structure of human beings. This event ranks very high in the technological achievements of mankind. It is also noteworthy that this task required the confluence of some of the best minds in the medical sciences and computer technology. Frankly, the mapping of the human genome simply would not have been possible at this time absent the development of the low-cost, high- speed computers that have been available to scientists in recent years. Over the next few decades perhaps no more valuable cargo will travel down the information highway of the Internet than the gene maps. This new knowledge will not sit idly in digital databases. For once the detailed genetic structure is known and accessible, researchers will be better able to understand the function of individual genes and complex interactions among collections of genes. Once both structure and function are ascertained, diagnostic tools, therapeutic agents and preventives such as vaccines can be more easily developed. It is the American public who stands to benefit most from this new knowledge and products. It would be difficult to underestimate the effect that biotechnology will have on health care delivery and, more to the point, on the health status of the American public and our neighbors throughout the world. In the area of cancer, for example, we are positioned to make substantial gains in knowledge that will make traditional treatments obsolete. I am pleased that the University of Utah and Myriad Genetics, a small Salt Lake City biotech firm, are at the forefront of the battle against breast cancer. Their work on the BRCA-I gene has contributed substantially to our understanding of how this terrible disease is triggered genetically. All of us wish success to these Utah scientists and their colleagues throughout the world in their efforts to curtail breast cancer. Advances in biotechnology will also emanate from the medical device industry. For example, Paradigm Medical Industries, another Salt Lake City firm, is refining existing laser technology in order to develop a new ``cold'' laser that promises to reduce the adverse reactions rate associated with cataract surgery. While I may not be expert in all the scientific underpinnings of this new photon phacoemulsification system, I can say that since over 3 million cataract procedures are performed annually it is in the interest of the public to cut down on the current corneal burn rate of about 1,000 per day. As a representative of the people of Utah, I am proud to report that my state is home to over 120 companies in the biosciences. These firms employ over 11,000 Utahns and an additional 2,500 individuals outside of Utah. Total annual revenues of these Utah bioscience firms is in excess of $1.6 billion. The aggregate estimated market value of these firms exceeds $8 billion. The success of Utah in the exciting arena of biotechnology has been facilitated by the efforts the Utah Life Science Association--ULSA--and the State of Utah's Division of Business and Economic Development. I must commend the leadership of Governor Leavitt and Brian Moss of ULSA for their tireless efforts to promote the expansion of Utah's biotechnology sector. Utah is certainly not alone in its activity in biotechnology. Nationally, there are over 1300 biotech companies. Collectively, these firms employ over 150,000 people. The biotechnology industry accounts for over $10 billion in research and discovery activities annually and revenues of over $18 billion. Frankly, despite this impressive record of success, we have only scratched the surface of the future promise of this industry. About 90 biotechnology products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. More telling of the growing strength of this industry is the fact that over 350 biotechnology products are in late stage clinical trials. As these products move to the FDA approval stage, it seems foreseeable that in the next few years this research intensive sector, which recorded a net loss of $5 billion in 1998, will move into and stay in the black. As Chairman of the Judiciary Committee and as a Senator with a long time interest in health care, I can assure my colleagues that I will do all in my power to ensure that our intellectual property laws are structured in a way to help assure that the promising work in biotechnology laboratories can be delivered to the bedside of American patients in a fair and expeditious manner. To meet the goal of delivering new therapies to the patients, we must also work to ensure that the FDA regulatory system promptly and consistently renders judgments based on science and that the laws affecting international trade do not result in unnecessary barriers to delivering these new breakthroughs worldwide. In closing, I think it only fitting that the Senate has taken special note of the almost limitless frontier of biotechnology at the dawn of a new century and new millennium.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Reserving the right to object, could I ask how much longer the distinguished Senator will hold forth?

Mr. HATCH. If the Senator will yield, I express my gratitude to my good friend for the kind comments he has made. I really appreciate them. With that, I yield back.

Mr. HATCH. I thank the Senator. I did not do the same in New Hampshire and Iowa. I appreciate his kind remarks and appreciate his strong efforts on this bill. He has done a great job and deserves a lot of credit on this bill. With that, I relinquish the floor to the Senator from Minnesota.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that when the Senate completes its business today, it stand in adjournment until the hour of 8:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 27. I further ask consent that on Thursday, immediately following the prayer, the Journal of the proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed to have expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day, and the Senate then begin a brief period for morning business to consider a few housekeeping matters prior to the Senate proceeding as a body to the Hall of the House of Representatives to hear the President's address.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, if there is no further business to come before the Senate, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate stand in adjournment under the previous order following the remarks of Senators Dodd, Durbin, Daschle, and Reid of Nevada.

Mr. HATCH

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, for the information of all Senators, the Senate will be in session at 8:30 p.m. tomorrow in order to proceed as a body to the House of Representatives to hear the President's address. Following his remarks, the Senate will adjourn until Monday at 12 noon. At 2 p.m., the Senate will resume the bankruptcy bill. As announced previously, no rollcall votes will occur on Monday. Any Senator who still intends to debate bankruptcy amendments should be available to debate those amendments on Monday. Any votes ordered on those amendments will be postponed to occur on Tuesday, February 1.